The NYTs is moving into a new building that was obtained by eminent domain. Nuff said.
I can't read anymore drivel about what the NY Times thinks about the limits of "property rights".....because of the limits of its interpretation of "fair use rights". This story takes me to a link which I have to register for. Which I refuse to do.
"Atlas Shrugged" is a great book. Not because Ayn Rand was a great writer (she wasn't), and not because the characters are believable (they aren't). It's a great book because it really captured the essence of the Left and their mania for redistribution. The idea that a private developer -- with friends in government -- could just reach out and take property away from a private owner is so totally ludicrous and un-American. And yet, here we are.
Somebody tell me the NY Times ran a disclaimer pointing out the fact that the city of New York did the exact same thing to make way for the NY Times new office building a couple of years ago.
Is this why we have the 2nd Amendment?
Theft is theft, no matter who the thief may be, nor how many vote to approve. By the Times' logic, slavery was justified by the majority votes in favor--since those who so voted justified their stance as being "in the public interest."
I found this sentence especially cavalier: New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated.
Perhaps not a one of these folks will be hurt; perhaps none of them have treasured family memories of the locale; perhaps not a single one had hoped to leave the home to their loved ones.
But this decision guarantees that this will happen other places. Now the family farms face yet more than just a few bad years bringing the wolf to the door: the lesser tax revenues from 100 acres of farmland will now be enough reason to displace what could be generations of family heritage.
What a disgusting decision. And how much more disgusting that the New York Times cheers it gleefully as it is proudly points out that it itself is the beneficiary of such an exercise in eminent domain.
New York Times shows again that Communism alive and well. They promote it at every opportunity.
you can't fight city hall
The New York Times is WAY out of touch with its constituents over at DU. They are as outraged as we are.
Does anybody at the times understand that this country was founded on property rights?
http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm
This NY Times editorial will live in INFAMY. Just like their early 1900s editorial against the income tax.
I wonder how they feel about other ways in which land might be used to greater economic benefit such as, say, drilling in ANWR and other reserves for oil and gas.
Fire 'em up! Get those drills going! Time's a wastin' and the Supremes just said it was OKAY!
The pinheads at the NYT have been whining and wringing their hands over the Patriot Act allowing the FBI to check out their "libury" cards. Now, here they are cheering the government for taking away some of our rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. ((Shrug)).
Law of the jungle says bigger gorilla wins. Government is the bigger gorilla.
Article 3 section 2 paragraph 2 gives The Congress the Power to limit any and all matters before any court including the Supreme Court. All Congress has to do for ANY LAW is to put "The Supreme Court Shall Remain Silent on This Issue" at the end.Now getting Congress to exercise their authority over the judiciary is another matter. The are a bunch of spineless whimps.
"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. "
The uglier thing is that Sleezebag Kennedy used principles from Zimbabwe--home of fascist dictator Robert Mugabe.
For our edification, Mugabe is the same pile of human refuse who's put nearly a quarter million of his own people into utter homelessness and razes orphanages in his lust for absolute power.
What Part of "The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land" don't these charlatans understand?
And why is SCOTUS pulling plays out of Mugabe's playbook and telling the government it's perfectly OK?
Finally, as Michael Savage points out time after time again, there is a nasty stench on the bench. After this decision, I'm fully convinced this's the case.
Any ideas on how to Constitutionally rectify this situation--other than praying that Stevens, Breyer, and Kennedy retire from the bench?